[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 35 (Monday, March 3, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1446-S1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
comment about the serious problem in the judicial confirmation process
where Federal judges are pawns in political partisanship. I wrote to my
distinguished colleague Senator Leahy on February
[[Page S1447]]
29, last Friday. I sent him an extensive letter on the subject.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record
the full text of that letter at the conclusion of my comments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, during the past 20 years, we have seen a
very serious deterioration in the processes in the Senate on the
confirmation of Federal judges. Without a broad sweep of historical
reference, I believe it has been a very low point in the confirmation
of Federal judges since the beginning of the Republic, but in order to
say that with absolute certainty, there would have to be a very intense
historical survey undertaken.
It is plain that since the last 2 years of President Reagan's
administration until the present day, the confirmation process has
broken down whenever the White House has been controlled by one party
and the Senate controlled by the other party. In the last 2 years of
the Reagan administration, the judicial confirmation process broke
down. In the 4 years of the administration of President George H. W.
Bush, the confirmation process was riveted with partisanship. When
Republicans gained control of the Senate starting in January of 1995,
during the last 6 years of the administration of President Clinton, the
Republican Senate retaliated, and more than retaliated; it exacerbated
the problem. Then, when the administration of President George W. Bush
came, the Democrats were in control for about a year and a half of that
process. Again, the process was stymied. Then it got even worse. Then,
even though the Republicans had gained control of the Senate, after the
2002 elections, there were filibusters, which were very destructive to
the Senate. Then, there was a very serious challenge to the filibuster
rule. The Democrats were filibustering President Bush's nominees and
Republicans responded with a so-called constitutional or nuclear option
to change the filibuster rule to reduce the number from 60 to 51.
During the course of these battles, with one side raising the ante
and the other side raising the ante, exacerbating the controversy, I
was willing to cross party lines and support the nominees of President
Clinton who were qualified. For example, I crossed party lines to
support Judge Marsha Berzon who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on
March 9, 2000, and Judge Timothy Dyk who was confirmed to the Federal
Circuit on May 24, 2000. I supported Judge Richard Paez who was
confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on March 9, 2000, and Judge H. Lee
Sarokin who was confirmed to the Third Circuit on October 4, 1994.
Similarly, I supported President Clinton's nomination of Judge Gerard
Lynch who was confirmed to the District Court for the Southern District
of New York on May 24, 2000.
I also supported other controversial, nonjudicial confirmations such
as Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division of the Justice Department and the subsequent nomination of
Bill Lann Lee for the same position. I was willing to cross party lines
and support the nominees of the Democratic President. Now, I believe
the Republican caucus is correct. In order to determine which caucus is
to prevail, I believe the American people are going to have to be
informed as to what is going on. It is a picture, which I submit
requires correction.
Comparing the statistics on the confirmation of President Clinton's
nominees versus President Bush's nominees shows a significant
disparity. In the last 2 years of President Clinton's term, President
Clinton was successful in confirming 15 circuit nominees and 57
district court nominees, while President Bush has been successful in
confirming only 6 circuit court nominees and 34 district court
nominees.
Looking at the total of 8 years, there is, again, a great disparity.
In President Clinton's 8 years, 65 circuit judges were confirmed and
305 district judges. During the full two terms up to the present time
with President Bush, 57 circuit judges have been confirmed and 237
district court judges have been confirmed.
It is not just a matter of statistics, it is a matter of very
substantial impact on the public, a very substantial impact on the
courts, and a matter of very significant unfairness to the nominees
themselves.
It is impossible with any other statistical analysis to draw any firm
conclusions because the years overlap. Senator Leahy and I have already
exchanged extensive, candidly argumentative correspondence, and he has
made some points, but a close analysis shows that is not the case. When
he cites the confirmations in the year 2007, for example, his figures
look good because 13 of the judges were held over from the preceding
109th Congress. So, if those 13 are extracted, it is not the kind of a
picture that would show the statistical battle as tilting in his favor.
But, I believe it goes much further than the statistics. It goes to
what is happening day in and day out in the Federal courts.
There recently was extended publicity given to the Exxon Valdez case.
The situation first arose in 1989 when 11 million gallons of crude oil
were spilled in Alaska. The district court acted on the matter in 1994.
The case is just now coming to the Supreme Court of the United States,
which heard argument last week. In the interim, some 8,000 plaintiffs
have died.
In the text of the letter which I have sent to Senator Leahy and
which will be included in the Congressional Record, there are the
designations of areas where there are judicial emergencies. ``Judicial
emergencies'' means that there is an insufficient number of judges to
handle the backlog of cases in the courts. That means the people who
have gone to court to sue for damages in a personal injury case or to
sue for defective automobiles or to sue for negligently formulated
medicines are delayed. The adage is well established in our lexicon
that justice delayed is justice denied. I shall not elaborate in the
limited amount of time I have on the many circuits and district courts
where they face judicial emergencies because well-qualified judges have
not been confirmed. Here again, I can mention only a few. But one
nominee, Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the District of Columbia
Circuit Court has been pending in Committee for more than 20 months, is
a man who graduated magna cum laude from Yale, then graduated from Yale
Law School, and was editor of the Yale Law Journal. Editorials in the
Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have called for confirmation
of Mr. Keisler, calling him a ``moderate conservative'' and a ``highly
qualified nominee'' who ``certainly warrants confirmation.''
Robert Conrad, nominated to the Fourth Circuit, is nominated to fill
a judicial emergency and has been pending over 220 days. He is rated
unanimously well qualified and graduated magna cum laude from Clemson
University. An editorial in the Charlotte Observer stated it is
``outrageous'' that the Judiciary Committee has not held a hearing on
Judge Conrad, calling him a ``well-qualified judge who only 3 years ago
received unanimous Senate confirmation,'' and who ``was appointed by
Democratic Attorney General Janet Reno to head the Justice Department's
Campaign Task Force.'' He is a former prosecutor and distinguished
district court judge who was picked by the Attorney General of the
opposite party to head a very important campaign finance task force.
Nominee Rod Rosenstein for the Fourth Circuit has been pending for
over 100 days. The American Bar Association rated him unanimously well
qualified. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, summa cum
laude and Harvard Law School, cum laude. Two editorials in The
Washington Post urged Senate confirmation of Mr. Rosenstein, and one
stated:
``Blocking Mr. Rosenstein's confirmation hearing would
elevate ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it
would unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of
this question agree is well qualified for a judgeship.''
I think that statement by The Washington Post is as good a
characterization as you can find. The conduct of the Senate today is
elevating ideology and ego above substance. So I would urge my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to extend their hands across
the aisle, as I did on so many occasions during President Clinton's
tenure in office. How much time remains, Mr. President?
[[Page S1448]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 8 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Eight minutes?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 7 minutes 58 seconds
remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. The current presidential race
provides the Senate with a unique opportunity to come to grips with the
confirmation process of Federal judges and to make some very
fundamental commitments and very fundamental changes to our process.
We are in the midst of a Presidential campaign, and I think it is
fair to say the outcome is uncertain. It has fluctuated tremendously on
both nomination pictures. But, this is a time, with the outcome
uncertain, when neither side of the aisle would know who will gain an
advantage; we would not know whose ox was being gored. It is a time,
starting in the next Congress--if we can't act now, and my fundamental
plea is that we act at the present time--we ought not to wait 11
months, until January 20, 2009. This is a unique time to tackle the
problem for the future.
On April 1, 2004, I offered S. Res. 327, and I now offer the
substance of that resolution again. The whereas clauses of the
resolution recited a distressing array of facts similar to what we have
at the present time, with filibusters by the Democrats and with the
retaliatory prospect of changing the filibuster rule. The resolution
called for establishing a timetable for hearings of nominees for
district courts and courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to occur
within 30 days after the names of such nominees have been submitted to
the Senate by the President and then to establish a timetable for
action by the full committee within 30 days after the hearings and for
reporting out nominees to the full Senate. And then to have a timetable
for the full Senate to act within 90 days, with a provision for
reasonable extension of times, upon agreement of the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and the ranking member or the majority leader and
the minority leader to extend the time.
This resolution would establish procedures which would guarantee that
the confirmation of judges would go back to the good old days, where
you took a look at the person's academic credentials, you took a look
at the person's professional background, you interviewed the
individual, you had an FBI background check, and the person didn't have
to pass some ideological purity test. Or, the individual did not have
to pass a test such as what Judge Southwick was subjected to on this
floor for months and months and months.
It was particularly egregious in the case of Judge Southwick. Judge
Southwick was a distinguished Mississippi State appellate court judge.
He was nominated for the Fifth Circuit, and he had an extraordinary
record, more than 10 years on the State court bench--more than 70
opinions. Objections were raised to two lines in two concurring
opinions. Judge Southwick left the bench and went to Iraq and served
for months in the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He was interviewed by
many people of the Senate, and his confirmation hung on a thread until
a courageous Senator from the other side of the aisle crossed party
lines and led the way to get a few votes from the Democrats.
You don't have to be a profile in courage to support a judge such as
Judge Southwick, and you don't have to be a profile in courage to
support a nominee such as Rod Rosenstein or Peter Keisler or Robert
Conrad or the others who were enumerated in my letter--some 10 circuit
court judges and 18 district court judges.
I wish to quote a very respectable authority in my concluding
comment. A man who has served in the Senate since he was elected from
Vermont in 1974, twice chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and this is
what the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, had to say
on October 5, 2000.
This year, the Judiciary Committee reported only three
nominees to the Court of Appeals all year.
This is the last year of President Clinton's administration.
We denied a committee vote to two outstanding nominees who
succeeded in getting hearings. I hope we can look again and
ask ourselves objectively, without any partisanship: Can we
not do better on judges?
This is Senator Leahy. Going on.
I quoted Governor George Bush--
He was in the campaign process at that time in the 2000 election.
Senator Leahy says:
I quoted Governor George Bush on the floor a couple of days
ago. I said I agreed with him. On nominations he said we
should vote them up or down within 60 days. If you don't want
the person, vote against them. The Republican Party should
have no fear of that. They have the majority in this body.
They could vote against them if they want, but have the vote.
Either vote for them or vote against them. Don't leave people
such as Helene White and Bonnie Campbell, people such as
this, just hanging forever without even getting a rollcall
vote. That is wrong. It is not a responsible way and
besmirches the Senate, this body, that I love so much.
Senator Leahy, you were right on October 5, 2000, and you are right
on March 3, 2008.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
Washington, DC,
February 29, 2008.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Patrick: I write in the hope that you and I can work
out an accommodation on the confirmation of federal judges
without our respective caucuses coming to an impasse. Without
going into an elaborate history on the confirmation of
federal judges, the essence of the situation is that 15
circuit judges and 57 district court judges were confirmed in
the last two years of President Clinton's Administration,
compared to 6 circuit court and 34 district court judges for
President Bush in 2007-2008. That means there must be
confirmations or at least up-or-down votes on 9 additional
circuit and 23 district court judges to equal President
Clinton's record.
President Bush is even farther behind President Clinton in
total confirmations when contrasting their entire terms,
since President Clinton confirmed 65 circuit court and 305
district court judges while President Bush has so far
confirmed only 57 circuit and 237 district court judges. In
addition, thus far in the 110th Congress, only 5 of President
Bush's circuit court nominees have been granted hearings. By
this date in President Clinton's final two years in office,
the Committee had held hearings for 10 circuit court
nominees. Until the hearing for Ms. Catharina Haynes on
February 21, 2008, we had not had a circuit court hearing
since September 25, 2007, some 5 months ago.
While there have been many hotly contested issues in the
Senate in recent years, the most bitter controversies have
involved federal judicial nominations. In 2005, the battle
over judges reached a high point, or low point, with the
Republican caucus threatening to employ the ``nuclear
option'' to combat the Democrats' filibusters. In my
judgment, in the past twenty years, there has been a great
deal of blame split evenly between both sides.
As the record shows, I dissented from the Republican
caucus's position by casting key votes in favor of several
circuit court nominees, including controversial nominees such
as Judge Marsha Berzon, who was confirmed to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals on March 9, 2000, Judge Timothy Dyk,
who was confirmed to the Federal Circuit on May 24, 2000,
Judge Richard Paez, who was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit on
March 9, 2000, and Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who was confirmed to
the Third Circuit on October 4, 1994. Similarly, I supported
President Clinton's nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch, who was
confirmed to the District Court for the Southern District of
New York by a vote of 63-36 on May 24, 2000. I also supported
other controversial non-judicial confirmations such as Lani
Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
Division of the justice Department and the subsequent
nomination of Bill Lann Lee for the same position.
Now I believe that my caucus is correct in insisting on up-
or-down votes on nominees with extraordinary records,
including several who are nominated to fill seats deemed
judicial emergencies. A listing of these nominees with their
superb qualifications proves the point:
Circuit Court Nominees
Nominee: Peter D. Keisler, of MD, to the D.C. Circuit:
Pending over 600 days.
Nominated: June 29, 2006 Hearing August 1, 2006;
Renominated January 8, 2007.
ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Yale University, 1981;
J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; Notes/Comments Editor, Yale Law
Journal.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Robert H. Bork, D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals; Law Clerk, Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court; Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division, Department of Justice; Acting Attorney
General, United States Department of Justice (DOJ).
Editorials in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post
have called for confirmation of Mr. Keisler calling him a
``moderate conservative'' and ``highly qualified nominee''
who ``certainly warrants confirmation.
Nominee: Robert Conrad, of NC, to the 4th Circuit (Judicial
Emergency); Pending over 220 days.
[[Page S1449]]
Nominated: July 17, 2007.
ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Clemson University, 1980;
J.D., University of Virginia. 1983.
Career Highlights: U.S. Attorney, Western District of N.C.;
District Judge, District Court for the Western District of
N.C.; Chief Judge, Western District of N.C.
An editorial in The Charlotte Observer stated that it is
``outrageous'' that the Judiciary Committee has not held a
hearing for Judge Conrad, calling him a ``well-qualified
judge who only three years ago received unanimous Senate
confirmation'' and who ``was appointed by Democratic Attorney
General Janet Reno to head the Justice Department's Campaign
Finance Task Force.''
Nominee: Steve A. Matthews, of SC, to the 4th Circuit;
Pending over 170 days.
Nominated: September 6, 2007.
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not
Qualified.
Education: B.A., University of South Carolina, 1977; J.D.,
Yale Law School, 1980.
Career Highlights: Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, DOJ; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Policy. DOJ; Managing Director, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A.
Nominee: Catharina Haynes, of TX, to the 5th Circuit
(Judicial Emergency); Pending over 220 days. Nominated: July
17, 2007; Hearing February 21, 2008. ABA Rating: Unanimous
Well Qualified. Education: B.S., with highest honors, first
in her class, Florida Institute of Technology, 1983; J.D.,
with distinction, order of the coif, Emory University School
of Law. 1986.
Career Highlights: Partner, Baker Botts, LLP; Judge, State
of Texas, Dallas County, 191st District Court, Dallas, TX;
Partner, Baker Botts, LLP.
Nominee: Rod Rosenstein, of MD, to the 4th Circuit
(Judicial Emergency); Pending over 100 days. Nominated:
November 15, 2007. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
Education: B.S., summa cum laude, University of Pennsylvania,
1986; J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1989.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Douglas Ginsburg, D.C.
Circuit; Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General,
(Criminal Division, DOJ; Associate Independent Counsel,
Office of the Independent Counsel; Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Tax Division, DOJ; U.S. Attorney, U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland.
Two editorials in the Washington Post urged Senate
confirmation of Mr. Rosenstein and one stated ``blocking Mr.
Rosenstein's confirmation hearing . . . would elevate
ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it would
unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of this
question agree is well qualified for a judgeship.''
Nominee: Stephen Murphy, of MI, to the 6th Circuit
(Judicial Emergency); Pending over 1100 days. Nominated:
February 17, 2005; Renominated June 28, 2006; Renominated
March 19, 2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well
Qualified, Minority Qualified. Education: B.S., Marquette
University, 1984; J.D., St. Louis University, 1987.
Career Highlights: Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's
Office for the E.D. of Michigan; Attorney, General Motors;
U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
Nominee: Raymond Kethledge, of MI, to the 6th Circuit
(Judicial Emergency); Pending over 600 days.
Nominated: June 28, 2006; Renominated March 19, 2007. ABA
Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority
Qualified. Education: B.A., University of Michigan, 1989;
J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1993.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
U.S. Supreme Court; Counsel, Senator Spencer Abraham, U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee; Partner, Bush Seyferth Kethledge
& Paige.
Nominee: William Smith, of RI, to the 1st Circuit (Judicial
Emergency); Pending over 80 days. Nominated: December 7,
2007. ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified,
Minority Qualified. Education: B.A., Georgetown University
Law Center, 1982.
Career Highlights: Counsel/Partner, Edwards & Angell, LLP;
Staff Director, Senator Lincoln Chafee; District Judge,
District of Rhode Island.
Nominee: Shalom Stone, of NJ, to the 3rd Circuit (Judicial
Emergency); Pending over 220 days. Nominated: July 18, 2007.
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Well
Qualified. Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Yeshiva College;
J.D., cum laude, New York University School of Law. Career
Highlights: Associate, Sills, Cummis, Tischman, Epstein &
Gross; Member, Walder Hayden & Brogan, P.A.
Nominee: Gene Pratter, of PA, to the 3rd Circuit; Pending
over 100 days. Nominated: November 15, 2007. ABA Rating:
Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: A.B., Stanford
University, 1971; J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law
School, 1975.
Career Highlights: Partner, Duane Morris, LLP, District
Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
District Court Nominees
Nominee: Thomas A. Farr, of NC, to the Eastern District of
North Carolina (Judicial Emergency). Nominated: December 7,
2006. ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified. Education: B.A.,
summa cum laude, co-salutatorian, Hillsdale College, 1976;
J.D., Emory University School of Law, 1979; L.L.M.,
Georgetown University School of Law, 1982.
Career Highlights: Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Labor
and Human Resources; Staff Attorney, Office of Personnel
Management; Law Clerk, Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr., U.S.
District Court for the M.D. of NC; Adjunct Professor,
Campbell University School of Law.
Nominee: James R. Hall, to the Southern District of Georgia
(Judicial Emergency).
Nominated: March 19, 2007; Hearing Feb. 12, 2008; Scheduled
for markup Feb. 28, 2008.
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority
Qualified.
Education: B.A., Augusta College, 1979; J.D., University of
Georgia Law School, 1982.
Career Highlights: Partner, Avrett & Hall; Corporate Vice
President & General Counsel, Bankers First Corporation; 22nd
District State Senator, Georgia State Senate; Partner,
Warrick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall.
Nominee: Gustavus Adolphus Puryear, of TN, to the Middle
District of Tennessee.
Nominated: June 13, 2007; Hearing February 12, 2008.
ABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified.
Education: B.A., with highest honors, Emory University,
1990; J.D., with honors, University of North Carolina School
of Law, 1993.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Rhesa Hawkins
Barksdale, Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir.; Legislative
Director, Office of U.S. Senator Bill Frist; Executive VP,
General Counsel & Secretary, Corrections Corporation of
America.
Nominee: Brian Stacy Miller, of AR, to the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
Nominated: October 16, 2007; Hearing February 12, 2008;
Markup February 28, 2008.
ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.
Education: B.S., with honors, University of Central
Arkansas, 1992; J.D., Vanderbilt Law School, 1995.
Career Highlights: Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Arkansas
Prosecuting Attorney's Office; Judge, Arkansas Court of
Appeals (current).
Nominee: John A. Mendez, of CA, to the Eastern District of
California (Judicial Emergency).
Nominated: Sept. 6, 2007; Hearing February 21, 2008.
ABA Rating: Substantial majority Well Qualified, minority
Qualified.
Education: B.A., with distinction, Stanford University,
1977; J.D., Harvard Law School, 1980.
Career Highlights: United States Attorney, United States
Attorney's Office for the N.D. of CA; Shareholder, Somach,
Simmons & Dunn; Judge, Sacramento County Superior Court.
Nominee: Richard H. Honaker, of WY, to the District of
Wyoming.
Nominated: June 29, 2006; Hearing February 12, 2008.
ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
Education: B.A., Harvard College, cum laude, 1973; J.D.,
University of Wyoming College of Law, John J. Bugas
Scholarship, 1976.
Career Highlights: State Public Defender, State of Wyoming;
Member, Wyoming House of Representatives, 1987-1993; Partner,
Honaker, Hampton & Newman.
Nominee: Lincoln D. Almond, of RI, to the District of Rhode
Island.
Nominated: November 15, 2007.
ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
Education: B.S., University of Rhode Island, 1985; J.D.,
with High Honors, University of Connecticut School of Law,
1988; Notes/Comments Editor, Connecticut Law Review.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Peter C. Dorsey,
District Court for the District of Connecticut; Partner,
Edwards & Angell, LLP; Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court
for the District of Rhode Island.
Nominee: Mark S. Davis, of VA, to the Eastern District of
Virginia.
Nominated: November 15, 2007.
ABA Rating: Unanimous Well Qualified.
Education: B.A., University of Virginia, 1984; J.D.,
Washington and Lee University School of Law, 1988.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge John A. MacKenzie, U.S.
District Court for the E.D. of VA; Partner, McGuire Woods
LLP; Partner, Carr & Porter, LLC; State Court Judge, Third
Judicial Circuit of Virginia.
Nominee: David J. Novak, of VA, to the Eastern District of
Virginia.
Nominated: November 15, 2007.
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority
Qualified.
Education: B.S., magna cum laude, St. Vincent College,
1983; J.D., Villanova University Law School, 1986.
Career Highlights: Assistant District Attorney;
Philadelphia District Attorney's Office; Trial Attorney,
Criminal Division, DOJ; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S.
Attorney's Office for the S.D. of Texas; Assistant U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the E.D. of Virginia.
Nominee: William J. Powell, of WV, to the Northern District
of West Virginia.
Nominated: May 24, 2007.
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified, Minority
qualified, 1 abstention.
Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Salem College, 1982;
J.D., West Virginia College of Law, 1985.
Career Highlights: Assistant United States Attorney,
Southern District of WV; Member, Jackson Kelly, PLLC.
Nominee: David R. Dugas, of LA, to the Middle District of
Louisiana.
Nominated: March 19, 2007.
[[Page S1450]]
ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.
Education: Cadet, United States Air Force Academy, 1973;
J.D., Louisiana State University Law Center, 1978.
Career Highlights: Partner, Caffery, Oubre, Dugas &
Campbell, L.L.P.; United States Attorney, Middle District of
Louisiana (current); Exec. Director, Hurricane Katrina Fraud
Task Force Joint Command Center.
Nominee: Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., of MO, to the Eastern
District of Missouri.
Nominated: December 6, 2007.
ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified.
Education: B.A., Southern Methodist University, 1973; J.D.,
Southern Methodist University School of Law, 1976; Master of
Laws in the Judicial Process, UVA School of Law, 1998.
Career Highlights: Circuit Judge: 32nd Judicial Circuit of
Missouri; Supreme Court Judge, Supreme Court of Missouri;
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Missouri.
Nominee: David Gregory Kays, of MO, to the Western District
of Missouri.
Nominated: Nov. 15, 2007.
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified/Minority Not
Qualified.
Education: B.S., Southwest Missouri State University, 1985;
J.D., University of Arkansas School of Law, 1988.
Career Highlights: Prosecutor, Laclede County Prosecuting
Attorney's Office; Associate Circuit Judge, Laclede County
Circuit Court; Presiding Circuit Court Judge, Twenty-Sixth
Judicial District.
Nominee: James Edward Rogan, of CA, to the Central District
of California (Judicial Emergency).
Nominated: January 9, 2007.
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Well Qualified/Minority
Qualified.
Education: B.A., University of California at Berkeley,
1979; J.D., University of California Los Angeles School of
Law, 1983.
Career Highlights: Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Office; Judge, Glendale Municipal
Court; Member, California State Assembly; Member, United
States House of Representatives; Judge, California Superior
Court.
Nominee: William T. Lawrence, of IN, to the Southern
District of Indiana (Judicial Emergency).
Nominated: February 15, 2008.
ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
Education: B.A., Indiana University, 1970; J.D., Indiana
University School of Law-Indianapolis, 1973.
Career Highlights: Public Defender (Part-time), Marion
County Superior Court, Criminal Division; Master Commissioner
(part-time), Marion County Circuit Court; Judge, Marion
County Circuit Court; Magistrate Judge, District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana (current).
Nominee: G. Murray Snow, of AZ, to the District of Arizona.
Nominated: Dec. 11, 2007.
ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Brigham Young University,
1984; J.D., magna cum laude, J. Reuben Clark Law School,
Brigham Young University, 1987.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Stephen H. Anderson,
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals; Member, Meyer, Hendricks,
Victor, Osborn & Maledon, P.A.; Judge, Arizona Court of
Appeals.
Nominee: Glenn T. Suddaby, of NY, to the Northern District
of New York.
Nominated: December 11, 2007.
ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
Education: B.A., State University of New York at
Plattsburgh, 1980; J.D., Syracuse University College of Law,
1985.
Career Highlights: Assistant District Attorney, Onondaga
County District Attorney's Office; First Chief Assist,
District Attorney, Onondaga County Dist. Attorney's Office;
United States Attorney, Northern District of New York.
Nominee: Colm Connolly, of DE, to the District of Delaware.
Nominated: February 26, 2008.
ABA Rating: Not yet rated.
Education: B.A., University of Notre Dame; M.Sc., London
School of Economics; J.D., Duke University Law School.
Career Highlights: Law Clerk, Judge Walter Stapleton, Third
Circuit Court of Appeals; Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S.
Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware; U.S.
Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Delaware.
It is my hope that we can work together to ensure that all
of these nominees receive timely hearings and prompt votes in
the Committee.
In light of my extensive consultation with you in
scheduling the hearings for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice
Alito, as well as our collaboration on numerous other
Committee hearings, I was surprised when you scheduled a
hearing for Judge Catharina Haynes on February 21st during
the recess. I know you offered to postpone that hearing for a
relatively brief period of time, but a formal, written
request for a postponement would only have provided more
grist for the argument mill on these issues. I was prepared
to cancel my previously scheduled work in Pennsylvania to
attend the Haynes hearing until Senator John Warner, who was
in Washington, agreed to attend.
Given the uncertainty of who the next President will be,
now would be a good time to change the confirmation process
to guarantee prompt action on nominees with up-or-down votes.
I again urge you to work for me to establish a schedule for
prompt consideration of all currently pending judicial
nominees and ensure they receive up-or-down votes in
Committee and on the Senate floor. I have shared this letter
with the other Republican members of the Committee.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to commend the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee for his comments, which I first watched from my
office and then came to the floor.
I can recall, and I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania mentioned
this, the Berzon and Paez nominations at the end of the Clinton
administration, where there was a lot of discontent on the Republican
side of the aisle--strong feeling that these nominees were
ideologically unacceptable. I remember then-majority leader in the
Senate, Senator Lott, saying: We don't want to set the precedent that
the ideological leanings of these nominees will deny them an up-or-down
vote.
I, similar to Senator Specter and Senator Lott, voted for cloture on
those nominations, not to kill them but to move them forward. It was a
very important decision on the part of then-Majority Leader Lott to
prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the kind of meltdown that
seems to have occurred in this Congress to which Senator Specter was
referring.
At the beginning of this Congress, the majority leader, Senator Reid,
and I discussed the need for the Senate to have a fair, less-
contentious confirmation process. To his credit, I think that is his
view and his goal. We have made some progress on circuit court
nominations last year. We didn't match President Clinton's number from
the first session of his last Congress, but we came close. Now, we had
one notable bump along the way and Senator Specter referred to that and
that was the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick. But we were able to
get him through, thanks to, as Senator Specter pointed out, the
courageous decision on the part of particularly one Senator on the
other side. It was good for the institution that we did that.
Unfortunately, the prospect of turning the page on judicial
nominations, a goal which I think all but the hardiest partisans share,
has taken a wrong turn. Despite the best efforts of Senator Specter and
others, progress has all but ground to a halt. There have been no--I
repeat, no--judicial confirmations so far this year--not one. There has
been only one hearing on a circuit court nominee since September of
last year.
Let me say that again. So far this year, the second session of the
110th Congress, not a single judicial confirmation--not one. With
regard to circuit court nominees, only one hearing since September of
last year.
It is puzzling why progress has almost totally stopped. Some like to
blame the President, but as the ranking member, Senator Specter, has
noted, there are several circuit court nominees who have been pending
for hundreds of days who have yet to receive a simple hearing--a
hearing--let alone a committee or floor vote. In addition, many of
these nominees satisfy most or all the chairman's specific criteria for
prompt consideration. They have strong home State support--check the
box on that--they fill judicial emergencies, and they have good or
outstanding ABA ratings.
All these nominees Senator Specter referred to meet all those
criteria. So it is puzzling why it is taking so long to move them. I
hope the committee is not slow-walking these nominees based upon
decade-old grievances, both real and imagined. That might be
emotionally satisfying, but it will set a precedent that will serve us
ill, regardless of who is in the White House and which party controls
the Senate next year.
So I would hope our Democratic colleagues resist the desire by some
to drag us into the judicial confirmation brinkmanship and establish a
precedent they will regret. I hope they will treat these nominees
fairly, before it is too late.
Again, I wish to particularly commend Senator Specter, our Republican
leader on the Judiciary Committee, for pointing this out. He has
excellent credentials to make this point because he made similar
arguments when there was a Republican Senate and a Democratic President
when he felt Members on our side of the aisle were being dilatory in
providing fair consideration.
[[Page S1451]]
We know what the standard is. Each of the last three Presidents have
ended their tenures in office with the opposite party in control of the
Senate. We know that.
We know that the average number of circuit court judges appointed in
the last 2 years of each of these three Presidents, when the opposite
party controlled the Senate, was 17. We know the low end of that was
President Clinton with 15. Right now, we have six. Even meeting the low
threshold of President Clinton is a long way away.
Senator Specter has pointed out a way to meet that standard by
reporting out of committee and confirming people who meet all of the
criteria that have been specified by the chairman of the committee.
I commend Senator Specter for his comments. I hope they will be
heeded by people on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, what is our status right now on the floor?
Are we still in morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are still in morning business.
Mr. PRYOR. Do we have any time remaining in morning business?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 6 minutes 52
seconds.
Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent to yield back that time.
____________________